linux-kernel - Re: [GIT PULL] locking changes for v5.2

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Tue, 7 May 2019 10:39:25 -0400
From:   Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To:     Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Cc:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
        Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] locking changes for v5.2

On 5/6/19 3:43 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Waiman Long <longman9394@...il.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/6/19 4:50 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>> Linus,
>>>
>>> Please pull the latest locking-core-for-linus git tree from:
>>>
>>>    git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tip/tip.git locking-core-for-linus
>>>
>>>    # HEAD: d671002be6bdd7f77a771e23bf3e95d1f16775e6 locking/lockdep: Remove unnecessary unlikely()
>>>
>>> [ Dependency note: this tree depends on commits also in the RCU tree, 
>>>   please disregard this pull request if you weren't able to pull the RCU 
>>>   tree for some reason. ]
>>>
>>> Here are the locking changes in this cycle:
>>>
>>>  - rwsem unification and simpler micro-optimizations to prepare for more 
>>>    intrusive (and more lucrative) scalability improvements in v5.3
>>>    (Waiman Long)
>> Is it possible to pull in also my "locking/rwsem: Prevent decrement of
>> reader count before  increment" patch for 5.2? The rests can wait until 5.3.
> Sure - how close is this to a straight:
>
> 	git revert 70800c3c0cc5
>
> ?
>
> If it's close enough then please resubmit this as a 'Revert "..."' patch, 
> which I'll queue up in locking/urgent.
As explained by Linus, it is not a straight revert.
> It also is a performance, not a correctness fix, and should probably get 
> a Cc: stable as well, right?

This patch is not for performance. It is fixing a regression and it does
have a cc: stable tag.

Thanks you for your help as I would like to backport the fix downstream.

Cheers,
Longman